vahan79

Oops. Duh.

Not "weird" . . . actually kinda pretty: աստվածաշունչ (God's breath)

also, speaking of the poor "dog"...what about how "adultery" is "շանություն" . . . that is probably slang, though?!?

What about տռել / տռան ? Sorry for being "կոշտ" . . . but the onomatopoeia is kinda funny, huh? Especially the double "r" sound for emphasis . . . Maybe not "weird". . . but noteworthy!?!?

(1) I know that men are supposed to cover up; however, other than an Indonesian friend I had growing up, it seems that NO other Muslims I have met observe this rule. So, what's up with that? (btw, my friend would cover his chest, below the elbows, and below the knee) (2) You are saying that is the reason, but where do you get that from? It is not in the text, right? (3) The men is not expected to control himself really, though, right? Because there is no NEED for control because no one is attracted to a black blob of cloth! Sorry, but I'm just keeping it real. Also, if men controled themselves, there would be no need for women to cover up. Problem solved. (Also, where does it talk about men controling themselves...specifically men, and specifically as complementary to a woman's hijab?) I think that is progressive spin, too.

A note on learning Arabic to read the Qur'an. (1) Whenever you learn any second language through study (i.e., not as a child), you learn it through your native language, right? So you gain no more understanding of the language than you ever will. For example, if I learn that "sabah" is Arabic for "morning", then when I read "sabah" I am understanding Arabic, BUT my understanding of Arabic always comes back to how I learned the word, i.e., from the English word morning. Yes, you can learn nuances about the language and understand it, but just as those will have to be explained to you, they can be explained to you in an English text (or your native language) text. See? So it doesn't matter if you learn Arabic or not. (2) Even Arabs have to learn the Arabic in the Qur'an. Yes, they might learn this type of Arabic in school, but it is STILL NOT THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE. Their native language is whatever region they are from. For instance, I guarantee that the Qur'an doesn't use the word "shoo" for "what?" as a Lebanese person does. So even the Lebonese has to learn the standard/classical Arabic (albeit at a young age and in school), but their understanding of the Qur'an based on their native language is like an American's of Shakespeare. The point being, NO ONE can really REALLY understand the Qur'an in the truest sense.

(1) I think your statement that "the Hijab allows women to present themselves to society as human beings and not as 'women'" is actually a modern spin on the text. I think this smacks of one of the rationalizations or progressive interpretations that you disfavor. That is, it is a post hoc justification, rather than the true reason behind the rule. (2) As for the real reason, i.e., preventing men from getting aroused (which, by the way, you earlier stated that I was wrong that that was the purpose of hijab, but whatever). You are so inculcated in this belief system that you don't see the glaring fault in this line of reasoning. First, why does female sexuality bring about ills unto society. Second, why is the onus not on these "horny" men (that's essentially what you are saying) to CONTROL THEMSELVES. Why should women have to cover up so that men not be tempted and society not fall into dysfunction? By inhibiting female sexuality you are in effect demonizing it, treating IT as the root of the problem; the problem, if any are the MEN who are unable to control themselves. This is like putting the potential murder victims in prison to protect them from the murderers, instead of the other way around!! It's illogical. (3) That female sexual impulse is any less is far from scientifically proven. Women are socialized (especially in certain cultures, the Islamic one being a huge one) to not be sexual. Men, on the other hand, are allowed to be sexual openly and overtly. It is not true that "women's bodies cause sexual arousal (more than the other way around)"...men's bodies cause arousal, too, but women are socialized to fight their arousal. (4) Men should cover up, too, because gay men in society will be sexually aroused by men (assuming men are the more sexual). Isn't the arousal of gay men even MORE dangerous in Islam to the undermining of society than that of straight men?

Do you not see how those are not pro-woman at ALL!?!??! It assumes that men are the superior gender and all goodness to women is by and through their "grace." That is, in commanding men to treat women "fairly," "kind[ly]," etc., the subtext is that the treatment is at the mercy of men in the first place. And "helpers"..."HELPERS"!?!?!? That sounds like back-up singers. Helpers are ALWAYS second class. "I am the president of the company and this is my assistant (i.e., helper)" Does that scenario seem equal to you?

Okay, I don't know how to make this any clearer. Let's try this. If a woman doesn't wear hijab, she is exercising her "choice" not to do so. Correct. But, this choice is not given to her by Islam as you say ("how does that mean that Islam does not give people the choice not to wear Hijab?"), it is given to her by her own free will and by the government's recognition of that free will (i.e., her rights). Once she makes that choice, according to you, she is no longer Muslim, i.e., no longer part of Islam. Thus, Islam isn't doing anything to give her anything; it is forbidding her from doing it. I have the choice as to whether or not I eat pork. If I decide to eat pork, I know that it is forbidden (haram) by Islam. Islam does not "give" me "the choice" to eat pork or not. That choice is mine, irrespective of Islam. Islam forbids it. No, not physically or by force (how could it, it's a religion, not a person or army or government???). BUT, by KICKING ME OUT. Under your definition of choice in this context, you are saying that as long as Islam doesn't try to actively stop people from doing something, it is giving them choice. The only time Islam can do anything to stop anyone is when it is imposed by the government, in which case, it is the government doing it and not the religion. Ah, I don't know if this is getting clearer or more muddied....

I'm with you, brother. Sorry (to both of you) for trying to play "mediator"...it's just that I think you both contribute a lot and I like to really understand what you both are talking about... This kind of debate is fun...

Sassun, the problem is simple. Let me give you an example. What if I said: "A woman has a choice whether or not to jump in front of a speeding bus." What kind of choice is this if it means certain death? Yes, it's true, she has this choice, but what do we get from your calling it a "choice"? The problem is that the word "choice" usually implies the ability to make a decision without hideous reprocussions; that is, to decide one way or the other, where both alternatives are valid. If one of the alternatives is invalid, only an idiot (or a sinner, in the case of hijab) would choose that one. Moreover, what are you trying to get across by calling it a "choice." If it's just the "choice" as you have defined "choice" (basically, as physically possible and within the providence of free will), then you have no argument; what you are saying is obvious and meaningless. Get it?

To be fair, English is not his native or even most used language (remember, he is Armenian living in Lebanon). So we have to give him some leeway with things. I also don't think you two are disagreeing; I think you both know where Sassun stands on this issue. Sip, you can move on from there and make your broader point, if any (that a religion that requires hijab is anti-woman, etc.). I think when Sassun says that it does not FORCE hijab, he really means that his government doesn't force hijab. I agree with you, Sip, though, that saying the religion doesn't "force" it but then saying that if you don't do it you are "out" of the religion, is self-contradictory. Lastly, I think we are also up against a problem of cultural Muslims (on paper) and practicing/devout Muslims. This line is even more blurred with Jews. Jews that don't abide by the rules of Judaism are still considered "Jews" because Jewish is almost an ethnicity. Though this is not the case with Islam, most religions develop their own subcultures (for e.g., the Catholic subculture exists even for those that are non-practicing and would identify as Catholic).

I'd have to agree with Sip on this one, though it might be a miscommunication. I think you are each using the word "choice" differently. When Sassun said "hijab is a woman's choice," it sounded like he meant that a woman can make the choice to not wear hijab and be completely correct in the eyes of Islam. So, this seems to contradict his later statement that "hijab is a requirement." The only logical explanation is that Sassun believes that hijab is a choice, but making that choice has consequences, both when seeking private employment (if employer requires it) and to be "right" with Islam. The problem with this statement is that it is a tautology. Of course, we all have choices; we can choose to believe in Islam or not, for example. But that type of discourse is uninteresting, because it leads us to a circular pattern of reasoning and doesn't bring us any closer to understanding the strengths/flaws in Islam. That is, you can't say "hijab is a woman's choice" in order to imply some sort of liberalness to Islam, but then say, "but it will go against Islam." It's like when a child asks: "may I have one of those candies?" and a parent says "sure! go ahead!" and then after the child eats it saying "now go to your room, you're grounded!" Bottom line: Hijab is a choice for women, but it's a choice that will make them "sinners" under (Sassun's explanation of) Islam. So what use is there in calling it a choice? Does that bring us any closer to understanding misogyny in Islam?

Wait, are you describing Islam or Christianity?

Actually, it's "woe are we."